Reality check: Using win-2k IE security roll-up files on win-98

Hi 98,

We are volunteers here. Win98 is no longer supported by MS.

I imagine no-one here will waste their breath or time to vindicate/validate
the ravings of an unknown entity. (It's a bit like believing there is a
God).

He is correct that IE is made up of many modules. Retro-fitting those
modules to an unsupported/untested platform. (well.. untested says it all)
is an adventurous idea. At least nothing will be lost (on a win98) if you
choose to do your own testing. Your machine must be one foot from the grave
already.

(MS offers discounted software for NFP organizations. Contact your local MS
office for the location of the nearest MS Partner offering those services).

Regards.

Post by 98 Guy
It has been mentioned in other forums that the files contained in
MS09-054 (Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer) for win-2K
can be used on win-98 systems.
A certain well-known kook who harasses a certain win-98 newsgroup has
made the following claims regarding the use of these win-2k files on
-------------
... you are once again attempting to address it as IF IT RELATES TO
A SINGLE FILE. It does not. There is a relational functioning
*between* *ALL of the files* necessary for the *specific* function,
e.g., web browsing.
In this case its IE, NOTE however, IE was *NEVER* properly ported
to work within Win9X, *it was DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional
browser Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior to releasing/for a new OS].
Since DAY ONE there have been missing function calls in 9X within
IE6 *WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR FULL SECURITY FUNCTIONING*. One of the
KEY elements is the user environment [usrenv] which INCLUDES the
security hooks to other NT ONLY security functions ONLY available
in those environments. The errors are REPRESSED in 9X, however
they DO EXIST.
IF you would care to review some of this forum's OLD history, you
would find lengthy discussions on IE and its files, AND you would
find some of 98 Guy's prior attempts [starting in 2006] to apprise
of installable W2K or XP files into 9X for IE AND lengthy
discussions of WHY those don't work properly, AND WHY they provide
nothing more than a false sense of security and MAY install even
more dangerous vulnerabilities than exist in an EOL IE.
IF YOU want to test these, feel free to do so, however, unless
you TEST them with SOFTWARE AND SPECIFIC VULNERABILITIES TESTS
you have done nothing but installed some files which may cause
other issues...
----------------
browseui.dll cdfview.dll danim.dll dxtmsft.dll dxtrans.dll
iepeers.dll inseng.dll jsproxy.dll mshtml.dll msrating.dll
mstime.dll pngfilt.dll shdocvw.dll shlwapi.dll urlmon.dll
wininet.dll
But possibly not the directx files danim.dll, dxtrans.dll and
dxtmsft.dll.
--------------
NOTE however, IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within
Win9X, *it was DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional browser
Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior to releasing/for a new OS].
-------------
The author of those statements will not elaborate or give anything
resembling a coherent answer or explanation to back up his claims nor
reference any published web-source.

98 Guy

2009-10-20 13:05:24 UTC

Post by rob^_^
We are volunteers here. Win98 is no longer supported by MS.

Support was not the intent with my post. I was looking for comments
regarding the claim that IE (or perhaps IE6 specifically) was "designed"
for NT-based OS's and that it's operation on win-9x systems was

Post by rob^_^
--------------
NOTE however, IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within
Win9X, *it was DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional browser
Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior to releasing/for a new OS].
-------------
I imagine no-one here will waste their breath or time to vindicate
validate the ravings of an unknown entity.

It wouldn't take much time to either state that the statements are
correct or incorrect - it shouldn't matter *who* made them. Either a
statement is factual and correct, or it isin't.

Post by rob^_^
Your machine must be one foot from the grave already.

Not to go off on a tangent, but there are many people that still run
win-98, and some (like myself) do so on modern hardware (3 ghz P-4's,
Core2, etc, with 500 gb SATA hard drives, etc).

Post by rob^_^
MS offers discounted software for NFP organizations.

I have access to MSDN CD's and could run 2K, XP, Vista, Windows 7, etc.
I could use them without regard to following their EULA (Microsoft is a
criminal organization so techinically you can't steal from a criminal).
Yet I choose to stay with win-98se and Office 2K Premium. There's
practically nothing I can't do with that platform (other than be
vulnerable to viruses and trojans that have ravaged the NT-based OS's
during the past decade due to the negligent way that Micro$haft designed
XP and forced it upon the public). It was quite funny, in a sad way, to
watch all those XP systems become infected and turn into spam zombies
while my win-98 systems stayed 100% clean.

(and btw, full-quoting is bad form)

N. Miller

2009-10-20 18:51:03 UTC

Post by 98 Guy
It wouldn't take much time to either state that the statements are
correct or incorrect - it shouldn't matter *who* made them. Either a
statement is factual and correct, or it isin't.

Those who know are probably busy with other stuff. The rest of us don't
care, because things are way beyond caring about that. Sort of like
discussing the issues of Windows 3.1.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

98 Guy

2009-10-21 00:06:53 UTC

The rest of us don't care, because things are way beyond caring
about that. Sort of like discussing the issues of Windows 3.1.

I'm not asking you or anyone else to "care" about something.

I'm asking if the following statement has any shred of believability or
support:

: NOTE however, IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within
: Win9X, *it was DESIGNED for the NTs*

What internal structures or conventions within NT-based OS's would IE
rely or depend on that wouldn't also exist on win-9x platforms, such
that it would make the "port" of IE to 9x problematic, difficult or
incomplete?

How does the history of IE development support the above quoted
statement?

N. Miller

2009-10-21 02:08:32 UTC

The rest of us don't care, because things are way beyond caring
about that. Sort of like discussing the issues of Windows 3.1.

I'm not asking you or anyone else to "care" about something.
I'm asking if the following statement has any shred of believability or
: NOTE however, IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within
: Win9X, *it was DESIGNED for the NTs*
What internal structures or conventions within NT-based OS's would IE
rely or depend on that wouldn't also exist on win-9x platforms, such
that it would make the "port" of IE to 9x problematic, difficult or
incomplete?
How does the history of IE development support the above quoted
statement?

From the responses so far, I would say that anybody who can answer is
disinclined from offering an answer; and the rest of us plain don't know.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Tom Willett

2009-10-21 12:46:48 UTC

:
: From the responses so far, I would say that anybody who can answer is
: disinclined from offering an answer; and the rest of us plain don't know.

Or just plain don't care.
: --
: Norman
: ~Oh Lord, why have you come
: ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

98 Guy

2009-10-21 21:45:31 UTC

Post by Tom Willett

Post by N. Miller
From the responses so far, I would say that anybody who can
answer is disinclined from offering an answer; and the rest
of us plain don't know.

Or just plain don't care.

No, it's probably that there's nobody with sufficient knowledge of IE
that can answer the question.

Anyone that could actually speak to the question would most likely not
hold back their knowledge and expertise. The rest of you klowns would
just rather think that it's a question that nobody cares about
answering, when you all have really almost no technical knowledge of IE
or how it interacts with the operating system.

At least, not enough knowledge to speak to this comment and give an
opinion:

-----------
IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within Win9X, *it was DESIGNED
for the NTs* [the transitional browser Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior
to releasing/for a new OS]. Since DAY ONE there have been missing
function calls in 9X within IE6 *WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR FULL SECURITY
FUNCTIONING*. One of the KEY elements is the user environment [usrenv]
which INCLUDES the security hooks to other NT ONLY security functions
ONLY available in those environments. The errors are REPRESSED in 9X,
however they DO EXIST.
-----------

N. Miller

2009-10-22 06:23:21 UTC

Post by Tom Willett

Post by N. Miller
From the responses so far, I would say that anybody who can
answer is disinclined from offering an answer; and the rest
of us plain don't know.

Or just plain don't care.

Well, this "klown" hasn't used a Windows 9x system in years. It has been
left in the dust, as far as I am concerned; ancient history. So why should I
care?

And anybody who actually knows might just feel the same way. I don't know
the specifics of using Gatling's machine gun, and I don't care to know. Most
important knowledge, in my day, was the specifics of using the M60; but that
has been superseded, for the most part, today.

And I don't know the specifics of using Colt's Dragoon pistol. I know it is
a cap-and-ball pistol, loaded from the front end of the cylinders, unlike
the later Colt's SAA (breech loading, using self-contained metallic
cartridges).

There is a lot of archaic hardware out there, knowledge of which has become
specialized to some degree; and useless to some degree. If nobody knows, or
nobody who does is willing to share, what are you going to do? Pitch a fit?
Oh, wail, you're already doing that! ;)

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

98 Guy

2009-10-22 13:02:27 UTC

Post by 98 Guy
hold back their knowledge and expertise. The rest of you klowns
would just rather think that it's a question that nobody cares
about answering, when you all have really almost no technical
knowledge of IE or how it interacts with the operating system.
At least, not enough knowledge to speak to this comment and give
an opinion ...

Well, this "klown" hasn't used a Windows 9x system in years.

You see - this is how you deflect the conversation. This isin't about
the merrits about using Win-9x now or in the past.

This is a question about technical-level details about the operability
of IE and win-9x. If you simply don't know or understand the question,
that's understandable - but you don't have to spin it in terms of
denigrating win-9x.

Post by N. Miller
It has been left in the dust

And it's clear that even during the day, when it was current, that you
wouldn't have been able to answer the question. So your level of
knowledge in that regard is sub-standard, or deficient. You've made
that much clear to the reader.

This statement remains unchallenged and unconfirmed:

-----------
IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within Win9X, *it was DESIGNED
for the NTs* [the transitional browser Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior
to releasing/for a new OS]. Since DAY ONE there have been missing
function calls in 9X within IE6 *WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR FULL SECURITY
FUNCTIONING*. One of the KEY elements is the user environment [usrenv]
which INCLUDES the security hooks to other NT ONLY security functions
ONLY available in those environments. The errors are REPRESSED in 9X,
however they DO EXIST.
-----------

Patrick Palczewski

2009-10-22 23:17:43 UTC

Well, have you yourself tested the "statement" you keep posting as
confirmed? If you did and you found it true, then it's true FOR YOU. For the
rest of us, we've moved on, so trying to bait us into a argument and then
calling us "klowns" when we're not really worried about what the past held
(because WE'VE MOVED ON) is petty at best.

Welcome to my killfile....

Well, this "klown" hasn't used a Windows 9x system in years.

You see - this is how you deflect the conversation. This isin't about
the merrits about using Win-9x now or in the past.
This is a question about technical-level details about the operability
of IE and win-9x. If you simply don't know or understand the question,
that's understandable - but you don't have to spin it in terms of
denigrating win-9x.

Post by N. Miller
It has been left in the dust

And it's clear that even during the day, when it was current, that you
wouldn't have been able to answer the question. So your level of
knowledge in that regard is sub-standard, or deficient. You've made
that much clear to the reader.
-----------
IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within Win9X, *it was DESIGNED
for the NTs* [the transitional browser Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior
to releasing/for a new OS]. Since DAY ONE there have been missing
function calls in 9X within IE6 *WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR FULL SECURITY
FUNCTIONING*. One of the KEY elements is the user environment [usrenv]
which INCLUDES the security hooks to other NT ONLY security functions
ONLY available in those environments. The errors are REPRESSED in 9X,
however they DO EXIST.
-----------

N. Miller

2009-10-23 00:43:06 UTC

Post by 98 Guy
You see - this is how you deflect the conversation. This isin't about
the merrits about using Win-9x now or in the past.

Okay. Allow me to take another tack. I once worked for the Hewlett Packard
Company. Even as a lowly board repair technician, I was required to sign a
"Non Disclosure Agreement". Basically, if I learned anything which was
Corporate Confidential, I was not allowed to reveal what I learned to the
public until after it had be released through official Corporate press
channels. My inclination was to treat anything I learned, which I had not
read in the official HP press releases as "confidential".

I wonder how much of what you wish to learn fall under the same sort of NDA?

Now, it is obvious, to me, that:

A.) Nobody who knows, cares.

B.) Nobody who cares, knows

C.) You are a Troll.

'Bye.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Hot-text

2009-10-24 06:03:30 UTC

Here and Win98 up and running
http://www.minpin.ath.cx is Power by window 98

Maybe Windows 7 will be the one that anybody don't care about....

Long live win98; For win95 was a toy, But windows 98 was and is a man tool.

Just make us a CD of the UPDATES we Buy it.

For We do need new UPDATE just the one Microsoft have now for Win 98 will
be good

Are Do Make SUE come up. For that Girl Will not be a good Woman to
See!!!!!

Post by Tom Willett

Post by N. Miller
From the responses so far, I would say that anybody who can
answer is disinclined from offering an answer; and the rest
of us plain don't know.

Or just plain don't care.

Well, this "klown" hasn't used a Windows 9x system in years. It has been
left in the dust, as far as I am concerned; ancient history. So why should I
care?
And anybody who actually knows might just feel the same way. I don't know
the specifics of using Gatling's machine gun, and I don't care to know. Most
important knowledge, in my day, was the specifics of using the M60; but that
has been superseded, for the most part, today.
And I don't know the specifics of using Colt's Dragoon pistol. I know it is
a cap-and-ball pistol, loaded from the front end of the cylinders, unlike
the later Colt's SAA (breech loading, using self-contained metallic
cartridges).
There is a lot of archaic hardware out there, knowledge of which has become
specialized to some degree; and useless to some degree. If nobody knows, or
nobody who does is willing to share, what are you going to do? Pitch a fit?
Oh, wail, you're already doing that! ;)
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Hot-text

2009-10-24 05:42:22 UTC

98 Guy
It look like they would like Win98 to give up Ghost and Die.
They need to put all the win98 Updates on a CD to Sell, I would Buy One,
would you Guy?
Make BILL same $$$$$$.$$

We Do NOT NEED THEIR answer or Help.
For they not knowledge of Making Money For BILL.
Long Live WebTV for (Window 98) GUY!!!

rob^_^

2009-10-29 23:50:50 UTC

Hi,

MS do not sell their software. It is licensed with an EULA which clearly
states the terms and conditions of use and warranties.

There is nothing stopping you applying to MS for an OEM distribution
license. They would not be able to provide any support though.

Those of you still using anything less than XP SP2 are not only endangering
your own computer security, but also the security of all your friends,
co-workers and the general internet public.

If you are too poor to afford an OS upgrade then there are avenues to secure
resources for NFPO's (contact your nearest MS office) at discounted prices.

Regards.

Post by 98 Guy
98 Guy
It look like they would like Win98 to give up Ghost and Die.
They need to put all the win98 Updates on a CD to Sell, I would Buy One,
would you Guy?
Make BILL same $$$$$$.$$
We Do NOT NEED THEIR answer or Help.
For they not knowledge of Making Money For BILL.
Long Live WebTV for (Window 98) GUY!!!

N. Miller

2009-10-20 18:49:03 UTC

(It's a bit like believing there is a God).

Actually, its more like listening to a raving Atheist.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

rob^_^

2009-10-21 01:24:19 UTC

Credit: root credos = to have trust/belief in one's word.
incredible!

No wonder Mr. Bush was miss-underestimated. No kudos, no credit.

(It's a bit like believing there is a God).

Actually, its more like listening to a raving Atheist.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

N. Miller

2009-10-21 02:06:38 UTC

Post by rob^_^

(It's a bit like believing there is a God).

Actually, its more like listening to a raving Atheist.

Credit: root credos = to have trust/belief in one's word.
incredible!

Credit? In God we trust; everybody else pays cash.

Post by rob^_^
No wonder Mr. Bush was miss-underestimated. No kudos, no credit.

How is an atheist any more credible than any other fool posting to a public
Usenet group?

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Peter Foldes

2009-10-23 01:38:24 UTC

My answer to you is a big No
--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

PA Bear [MS MVP]

2009-10-23 01:46:34 UTC

cf.
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion/browse_frm/thread/c8a23b4d29b3a4a3
(and surpress your gag reflex)

PS: Please don't feed the trolls...especially /that/ troll.

Post by Peter Foldes
My answer to you is a big No

98 Guy

2009-10-30 13:03:35 UTC

Post by Peter Foldes
My answer to you is a big No

Because you were lazy and you full-quoted the original post withing
editing it to strategically place your answer so I could infer your
context, I don't know what your "big no" is referring to.

Post by Peter Foldes
A certain well-known kook who harasses a certain win-98 newsgroup
has made the following claims regarding the use of these win-2k
files on win-98. Please post your comments regarding the

If your "big no" refers to the the entire comment written by meb, then
ok, fine.

If it doesn't, then you need to clarify.

Hot-text

2009-10-24 06:10:55 UTC

Richard

2009-10-24 10:59:42 UTC